3 comments:

I like your #3 argument. I do think that it should be reworded though because it seems like it is a statement. Maybe something like... Students who live on-campus should not be required to have a meal plan. Or something like... Students living on-campus shouldn't be limited in what their meal plans allow.

I think that the best way to avoid the boot on your car is to not do anything illegal. You don't have to pay if you dont get it on. Although, it is lame when it is a mistake and you still have to pay and get it worked out later. I dont know, maybe that is what happened. Just park legally and with a permit and you can avoid the situation entirely.

Where would the space come from for the Y parking lots? I agree there is very limited parking, but there is also an issue of space. Make sure you are thinking about the opposition when you craft your paper.

Who does the second argument address? I'm not sure all companies charge the same amount to remove a boot, some charge even more than this. The natural counter point to this is that if you didn't get a boot in the first place, you wouldn't have to pay to remove it. So how do you handle that response?

Your third argument has the most potential, but you need to develop it more. Don't assume everyone is familiar with the meal plan restrictions, also find out and address the reasons why the meal plan is set up the way it is. Suggest a solution that can work within the limitation of the meal centers.